Defences Involving State Of Mind

Question 1

Insanity legislation

Where is legal insanity defined?

Answer 1

Section 23 CA61

(1) Everyone shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved.

(2) no one shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by them when labouring under natural imbecility or decease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable of;

(a) understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or

(b) knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong

Question 2

Burden of proof

Burden of proof for insanity

R v COTTLE

Answer 2

As to the degree of proof, it is sufficient if the plea is established to the satisfaction of the jury on a preponderance of probabilities without necessarily excluding all reasonable doubt.

Thus, defendant not required to prove the defence of insanity beyond reasonable doubt, but to the satisfaction of the jury on the balance of probabilities

Question 3

R v CLARK

Answer 3

The decision as to accused insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily an reasonable but where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.

Question 4

M’Naghrens rules

If a person is insane

What are M’Naghrens rules frequently used to establish and what is it based on?

Answer 4

• whether or not a defendant is insane

Based on:

• the persons ability to think rationally, so that if a person is insane they were acting under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind that they did not know;
• the nature and quality of their actions
• that what they were doing was wrong

Question 5

Disease of the mind

A term
Which defies precise definition and does not include what?

Answer 5

• a term which defies precise definition and which can comprehend mental derangement in the widest scene
• does not include a temp mental disorder caused by some factor internal
  To the defendant, such as a blow to the head, absorption of alcohol, or an anaesthetic or hypnotism.

Disease of the mind is not a medical question but a legal one

Question 6

R v CODERE

Nature and quality

Answer 6

• the nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act. The phrase does not involve any consideration of the accused’s moral perception not his knowledge of the moral quality of the act, thus a person who is so deluded that he cuts a women’s throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.

Question 7

Automatism

What is the definition of automatism?

Answer 7

• can be described as a state of complete and total blackout, during which a person is not conscious of there actions and not in control of them.

Question 8

R v COTTLE

Answer 8

Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterward of having done it - a temp eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements

Question 9

Culpability- is someone in a state of automatism culpable?

Answer 9

• actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common law rule is that there is no criminal liability for such conduct.

Question 10

Caused by med condition - what are some possible causes of automatism?

Answer 10

• brain tumor
• epilepsy
• consumption of drugs or alcohol

Question 11

What are the 2 types of automatism?

Answer 11

Sane automatism
- the result of somnambulism (sleep walking), or a blow to the head or effects of drugs

Insane automatism
- the results of a mental disease

Question 12

Automatism induced by drink or drugs

Answer 12

• complex issue and should not be confined with the general defence of intoxication

Position in nz whether someone has become an automatism
By ingesting so many drugs or so much alcohol that they are not responsible for such actions is a defence that is available if the evidence of the defence can clearly raise the issue

Question 13

Criminal intent

Certain offences require intent and others require little or no intent.

What is an example of each?

Answer 13

No intent required
- driving with excess BA, person must prove total absence of fault. Drive without conscious appreciation of fact of driving or intoxication.

Intent required
- any offence that has intent as element - assault

Question 14

Intoxication

The general rule has been that intoxication may be a defence to the commission of an offence;

Answer 14

• when the intoxication causes a disease of the mind so brings insanity into effect
• if intent is required as essential element of offence and drunkenness is such that defence can pled a lack of intent to commit offence.
• where the intoxication causes a state of automatism (complete acquittal)

Question 15

Crown must prove intent required

Intoxication

Answer 15

For intoxication to suffice as defence, all
You need to establish as reasonable doubt about defendants required state of mind at time of offence.

Does not have to show that defendant uncalled of forming Mens rea, merely that, because of their drunken state, they did not have proper state of mind to be guilty

Question 16

Ignorance of law

Intoxication

Answer 16

• if intoxication is used to try to establish ignorance of law, it will not establish a defence.
• ignorance of law is not excuse for any offence committed

Question 17

What is likely easily of trial
Where pendant is found to have been in a state of automatism from intox?

Answer 17

• complete acquittal